| Literature DB >> 32528904 |
Priyank Jaiswal1, Manab Ghosh2, Goutam Patra1, Bibhuti Saha2, Sumi Mukhopadhyay1.
Abstract
Background: Post Kala Azar Dermal Leishmaniasis (PKDL) is a non-fatal dermal sequel of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL), affecting individuals worldwide. Available diagnostic tools lack sensitivity and specificity toward identifying macular (MAC) PKDL patients, due to low parasite load in patients' sample. Confirmatory test like punch biopsy are invasive and painful. Considering the rural nature of this disease and the prevailing situation of diagnostic scenario, PKDL patients mostly remains unattended from receiving proper medical care. They in turn act as "mobile parasite reservoir," responsible for VL transmission among healthy individuals (HI). This study aims to identify PKDL disease specific glycated protein biomarkers, utilizing the powerful LC-MS/MS technology, which is the tool of choice to efficiently identify and quantify disease specific protein biomarkers. These identified PKDL disease specific novel glycoproteins could be developed in future as immunochromatographic based assay for efficient case detection. Methodology: Previously our lab had identified importance of glycated (Circulating Immune Complexes) CICs, among PKDL patients. This study aims to further characterize disease specific glycated protein biomarkers, among MAC PKDL patients for both diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of the disease. LC-MS/MS based comparative spectral count analysis of MAC PKDL to polymorphic (POLY) PKDL, HI, and Cured (CR) individuals were performed. Proteins level alterations among all study groups were confirmed by Western blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbant Assay (ELISA).Entities:
Keywords: CICs; LC-MS/MS; MAC; PKDL; POLY; glycated biomarker; proteomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32528904 PMCID: PMC7266879 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Schematic representation of the experimental study design. (A) Sample selection strategy for the proteomics study; HI (n = 12), MAC (n = 20), POLY (n = 20) and CR (n = 12). (B) Experimental design used for the ELISA; HI (n = 12), MAC (n = 20), POLY (n = 20) and CR (n = 12). Patient population used for protein levels, belongs to the same patient population as that of the proteomics study. HI, Healthy Individuals; MAC, Macular PKDL patients; POLY, Polymorphic PKDL patients; CR, Cured Individuals.
Patient and Healthy control characteristics.
| Age | ||
| Years (SD) | 26.08 (16.26) | 27.78 (7.78) |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 25 | 7 |
| Female | 27 | 5 |
| Type of PKDL patient | ||
| Macular | 20 | _ |
| Polymorphic | 20 | _ |
| Cured | 12 | _ |
| Previous VL history | 52 | _ |
Figure 2Representative MS-MS spectra of significantly altered proteins obtained from Q-ExactivePlus Orbitrap mass spectrometer study. (A) MS-MS spectra of Plasminogen (PLG) protein. (B) MS-MS spectra of Vitronectin (VTN) protein. (C) Venn diagram showing number of common proteins in all the patients with MAC lesions compared to HI. (D) Venn diagram showing number of common proteins in all the patients with MAC lesions compared to POLY lesions. (E) Venn diagram showing number of common proteins in all the patients with MAC lesions compared to CR individuals. (F) Validation of Plasminogen and Vitronectin using western blotting image Ponceau stained image of the blot after transfer.
Figure 3Box plot of plasma level of (A) IgG (B) PLG (μg/ml) (C) VTN (μg/ml) (D) TGF-β (pg/ml) for HI, MAC PKDL patients, POLY PKDL patients and CR individuals. Whiskers calculated adopting the Tukey method. Outliers showed as dots. *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001, ***p < 0.0001, ns-not significant: Kruskal–Wallis test (K) followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test.
Figure 4Box plot of plasma level of (A) PLG (μg/ml) (B) VTN (μg/ml) for HI, MAC PKDL patients, POLY PKDL patients, Vitiligo and Leprosy patients. Whiskers calculated adopting the Tukey method. Outliers showed as dots. *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001, ***p < 0.0001, ns-not significant: Kruskal-Wallis test (K) followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test.
Figure 6Protein-protein interaction networks. Protein-protein interactions of differentially expressed protein in different study groups. (A) Up regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to HI individuals. (B) Down regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to HI individuals. (C) Up regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to POLY PKDL patients. (D) Down regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to POLY PKDL patients. (E) Up regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to CR individuals. (F) Down regulated proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to CR individuals. Purple and green colored lines for experimental and textmining evidence of different interactions.
Overrepresented gene ontology (biological process) terms associated with differential proteins in MAC PKDL patients compared to POLY PKDL patients.
| Down regulated | 42 | Inflammation response | APOD, C4BPA, C5, KRT1, SERPING1, VTN, FGA, HP, ORM1, FGA, HP, ORM1 |
| Immune system process | ACTG1, AMBP, APOA2, C1QB, C4BPA, C5, CLU, HPX, HSP90AA1, HSP90B1, KRT1, SERPING1, VTN, APOD, ORM1, C1QB, C4BPA, C5, CLU, SERPING1, GAPDH, AZGP1, FGA, HP, ITGB3 | ||
| Transport | ACTG1, AMBP, CLU, FGA, FGG, HBB, HP, HPX, HSP90AA1, HSP90B1, ITGB3, MYH9, SERPING1, VTN, AFM, APOA2, APOD, AZGP1, ORM1, RPL37, TTR | ||
| Up regulated | 18 | Transport | A2M, ALDOA, APOB, C4A, PFN1, PLG, TBC1D17 |
Figure 5ROC curve obtained from the ELISA values for the detection of: (I) IgG in different experimental groups i.e., (A) MAC vs. HI, (B) MAC vs. POLY, (C) MAC vs. CR; (II) PLG in different experimental groups i.e., (D) MAC vs. HI, (E) MAC vs. POLY, (F) MAC vs. CR; and (III) VTN in different experimental groups i.e., (G) MAC vs. HI, (H) MAC vs. POLY, (I) MAC vs. CR; from the plasma of PKDL patients' samples.
Sensitivity, Specificity and AUC value of IgG, PLG and VTN in different experimental groups of PKDL patients: MAC vs HI, MAC vs POLY and MAC vs CR.
| Sensitivity (%) | 85 | 75 | 100 | 95 | 85 | 91.67 | 95 | 95 | 100 |
| Specificity (%) | 100 | 65 | 70 | 100 | 90 | 90 | 100 | 80 | 90 |
| AUC | 0.945 | 0.686 | 0.897 | 1.00 | 0.907 | 0.956 | 0.987 | 0.882 | 0.979 |